Your opinion on the bowing - Page 2

Scarlet · 04-09-2009, 04:29 AM

Again, your point (and no, not these "cool points" to which you refer) is completely lost because of your approach. I think enough people have mentioned this to you, but if you refuse to get it, then you just refuse to get it.

And it's "hoity toity", not "horty torty".

misspam · 04-09-2009, 05:13 AM

Yep, horty torty. That's me.

Myradella3 · 04-09-2009, 06:03 AM

So are we less safe because he bowed? Was there are direct relationship between the depth of his bow and degree to which the Dow fell on that day? I'm trying to determine the relevance.

misspam · 04-09-2009, 06:06 AM

I thought I would post this Washington Times Editorial which explains, brilliantly, why the bow is much more than a blatant violation of American protocol. For the record, I would be just as bothered by this if it were done by a Republican President.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...k-takes-a-bow/

Quote:

EDITORIAL: Barack takes a bow
The president shows fealty to a Muslim king

By | Tuesday, April 7, 2009

In a shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate, President Obama bowed to Saudi King Abdullah at the Group of 20 summit in London last week.

Mr. Obama later said in Strasbourg, France, "We have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect." Symbolism is important in world affairs. By bending over to show greater respect to Islam, the U.S. president belittled the power and independence of the United States.

The bow was an extraordinary protocol violation. Such an act is a traditional obeisance befitting a king's subjects, not his peer. There is no precedent for U.S. presidents bowing to Saudi or any other royals. Former President Franklin D. Roosevelt shook hands with Saudi King Abdulaziz in February 1945. Granted, Mr. Roosevelt was wheelchair-bound, but former President Dwight D. Eisenhower shook hands when he first met King Saud in January 1957. Mr. Obama's bow to the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques does not help his image with those who believe he is secretly a Muslim, and why he chose to bow only to the Saudi King and not to any other royals remains unexplained.

No Americans of any station are required to bow to royalty. It is one of the pillars of American exceptionalism that our country rejected traditional caste divisions. Article I Section 9 of the Constitution forbids titles of nobility and stipulates that no officeholder or government employee may "accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state" without the consent of Congress. Judith Martin wrote in her Miss Manners column in 2001 that bowing "is not an ordinary bit of foreign etiquette one might adopt out of courtesy when traveling. ... Americans do not properly bow to any royalty. We show respect for other countries' leaders the same way we do to our own."

Press outlets have been conspicuously silent on Mr. Obama's bow. Compare this to the New York Times' reaction when former President Bill Clinton inclined a bit too far when meeting Japanese Emperor Akihito in 1994. According to the Gray Lady, "The image on the South Lawn was indelible: an obsequent president, and the Emperor of Japan." Former President George W. Bush received thorough press attention after being photographed holding hands with then-Crown Prince Abdullah in 2005. "It clearly strikes a nerve," CBS News reported, while David Letterman satirized Mr. Bush as "officially the gayest president since Lincoln." These two cases were tame compared to Mr. Obama's full-out genuflection, which makes us wonder why it is not worthy of comment.

Mr. Obama is proving that one can be elected president without knowing how to behave presidentially. His servile gesture was fully fitting with the tone of his humility tour of Europe. In his eagerness to be loved personally, the president has lost sight of the fact that the leader of the free world also must be respected.

Scarlet · 04-09-2009, 06:19 AM

Yeah, i think you're going to get dinged for using the WT as a source, pam.

misspam · 04-09-2009, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarlet

Yeah, i think you're going to get dinged for using the WT as a source, pam.

Yeah, I knew when I posted that, somebody would get their panties in a wad, but I am more than over trying to satisfy the "Source Police" for posting something on a hair forum. It's a HAIR FORUM people!!!

Meghuney · 04-09-2009, 08:26 AM

Why don't YOU get over him being president?

gemini · 04-09-2009, 08:26 AM

I don't like that he bowed.

TANGENT AHEAD:
I'm also not a huge fan of SA. I love how we tout women's rights when it comes to the war in Afghanistan/defeating the Taliban and yet there's never a peep about how women are treated in SA because SA is our ally.

Scarlet · 04-09-2009, 08:37 AM

gemini, I agree.

Cynaminbear · 04-09-2009, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gemini

I don't like that he bowed.

TANGENT AHEAD:
I'm also not a huge fan of SA. I love how we tout women's rights when it comes to the war in Afghanistan/defeating the Taliban and yet there's never a peep about how women are treated in SA because SA is our ally.

I agree, too. Last week I read about Saudi women boycotting lingerie stores because the way law is interpreted there only men can work even in lingerie stores. I hope their point gets across.

wild~hair · 04-09-2009, 09:39 AM

Wow, a link to the Washington Times. And an editorial, no less.

Color me impressed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by misspam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarlet

Yeah, i think you're going to get dinged for using the WT as a source, pam.

Yeah, I knew when I posted that, somebody would get their panties in a wad, but I am more than over trying to satisfy the "Source Police" for posting something on a hair forum. It's a HAIR FORUM people!!!

True, but you're just not going to convince anyone of anything with that ish. That's the point.

When people get down on you for backing up your argument with blatantly biased sources, it's not being "The Source Police." It's irritation because you're basically wasting their time with that crap.

Offer up a moderate opinion piece. Or speak your own mind. That'd work better.

ETA: I think what it comes down to: do you want to persuade people, or do you just want to "be right" [or feel like you are].

misspam · 04-09-2009, 12:52 PM

Wow, apparently I ruffled some feathers this morning. Oops!

My point in posting here is not to persuade or change anyone's opinion. I don't need or seek the approval of anyone here on the subjects I discuss on the forum or the sources I use that, yes, reflect my opinion. I thought this was a discussion board where people predominantly post their opinions. Little did I know I had entered a world ruled by frustrated, former high school debate team champions who long for the good 'ol days.

I sourced an editorial. I sourced The Washington Times. So what! Again, my goal is not to persuade ANYBODY. I link many sources that I find interesting, and I put them out there for others who may not frequent the same sites as I do. End. Of. Story.

A cursory check of the politics forum alone highlights sources, of varying degrees of liberal persuasion, that others have cited and nobody raised so much as an eyebrow. Some examples include: Snopes, USAToday, NY Times, Wikipedia, CNN, Huffington Post.

liberal source = good
conservative source = bad

My frustration with the "source police" is similar to my frustration with the "spelling police" and the "grammar police", etc. If anyone wishes to be that irritating person who runs around like a hall monitor, knock yourself out. Also, if anyone truly has that much trouble sifting through the editorializing from any source, you have my sympathy.

wild~hair · 04-09-2009, 12:54 PM

No ruffled feathers here, misspam.

Carry on …

Myradella3 · 04-09-2009, 03:23 PM

What is the consequence of him bowing?

battinlash · 04-15-2009, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myradella3

What is the consequence of him bowing?

Other than some diplomatic embarrassment, there isn't any. It will be mocked for a while, and then everyone will move on. I don't see it as being as embarrassing as vomiting on the Japanese premier, or rubbing the shoulders of the female German chancellor.